T N RAI Vs. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 9th January,1997 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has been assailed primarily on the grounds, namely, (i) that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of ten years under Section 3(d) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act); and (ii) that the Court below has given very restricted meaning to Section 14(1)(h) & (hh) of the Act thereby making the provision redundant and meaningless; and finally (iii) while granting eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act the Tribunal did not consider the question of suitability of the accommodation allotted to the petitioner by Delhi Development Authority which the Tribunal was bound to do under the law.

(2.) To appreciate the challenge raised by the petitioner we may have a quick glance to the relevant facts. Mrs.Sudesh Kapoor filed an eviction petition under Clause (h) of the provision to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant Shri T.N.Rai with the averments and allegation that the premises consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath, a drawing room, a dinning room, kitchen front of A-263, Defence Colony, New Delhi were let out to him in the year 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,100.00 for residential purpose only. It was alleged that in the month of November,1989 the above named tenant was allotted a residential flat No.441, 3rd floor, pocket-B, Sector-I, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in the allotment category II Flat and the possession of the said flat was taken by the petitioner on 12th January,1990 and, therefore, he made himself liable for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of having acquired a vacant residence. The petitioner contested the eviction petition and filed the written statement not disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the rate of rent, the purpose of letting as also about the allotment of the above referred flat to him by the D.D.A. but he came forward with a plea that the said flat being situated on the third floor and their being no facility of lift was not suitable for him in as much as it was very difficult rather impossible for him to climb up the stairs every day and so he had made a written request to the D.D.A. for change of the flat from Sarita Vihar to Vasant Kunj on compassionate ground which request was, however, turned down but the petitioner still approached the higher authorities in that behalf. He further took the plea that the said flat was not suitable because it was situated at a very far of from his existing place of work and very inconvenient to his school going daughter. Sarita Vihar being 20 Km, where as Vasant Kunj was only 5 Km. He requested the D.D.A. that in case of non-avaiability of category II type flat in Vasant Kunj he was prepared to accept Type-II flat with down payment by giving differnece of cost of Type-II flat alongwith interest due on it. He also requested for change of flat from third floor to first floor. This request of the petitioner was turned down by the authorities first in 1988 and again in 1990. He further pleaded that the landlady was not the owner of the suit premises as the same was earlier owned by one Shri Pishori Lal Kapoor, and after his death the property has not been mutated in the name of the landlady. The landlady denied and controverted the pleas raised by him. However, before the parties were called upon to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas, the landlady moved an application under Section 12 Rule 6 CPC. Praying for an order of eviction in her favour based onthe admissions made by the tenant in the written statement. The said application was opposed, inter alia, on the grounds that the petition could not be disposed of unless he was afforded an opportunity to prove his pleas. After considering the respective pleas and the material available on record, the Court below held that in view of the admitted position no evidence was required nor it would serve any other purpose except to prolong the disposal of the petition and accordingly allowed the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code and passed the eviction order. Appeal preferred against that order was also dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

(3.) Before this Court order of the Tribunal as already pointed out above has been assailed on three grounds. Taking the first ground of challenge i.e. protection granted under Clause (d) of Section 3 of the Act at the outset it must be said that the petitioner is labouring under mis- conception of law. He is wrongly interpreting the provisions of Clause (d) of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 and Clause (d) are reproduced as under :